Obama vs. McCain, it officially begins: Clusterfuck to the White House

[Neo Geo MVS]

Originally Posted by Kazuki Dash
Sure, the Bush administration has proven their determination to lead, but it's rather clear that the direction they have led the country is not in our best interests.

Are you really so eager to excuse any kind of actions and behavior by Bush & co. from scrutiny? Do you really believe they have been so perfect in their handling of policy this whole time? Placing blind faith in any party is simply unwise, you know.

I guess having John Kerry or a Al Gore being president would have been better, huh?

I never said anything about Bush or his policies, so like loopz quit putting words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by jethrek
Now I'm loyal to the Republican party? I think galfordo would beg to differ. Last time I checked, this was a Democracy and voters were not bound to either party.

But please go on. McCain is a well known "rhino" in any event, voting with Democrats as often as Republicans, so you have fun with that if he wins. It's hilarious watching the mindless drones that loathed him a few months ago swear loyalty to him as a god now that they have no choice.

Your not bound by one party you can be a flip flop like Kerry if you want.

The big difference with McCain is he works with both parties and doesn't stick with one side of the aisle. He knows to get things done you have to work with fellow Democrates.

 

[Neo Geo MVS]

http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/...c_and_republican_presidents_too_us_to_war.htm

More Democratic Presidents have taken us to war than Republican presidents, don't forget that.

 

[Loopz]

When a troll digs a hole

http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/...c_and_republican_presidents_too_us_to_war.htm

More Democratic Presidents have taken us to war than Republican presidents, don't forget that.

Even that page you cite includes the following blurb:

George W. Bush, Afghanistan & Iraq. Police action to remove the democratically elected president of Haiti. Lied to the American people to make a case for the invasion of Iraq.

If that isn't an impeachable offense, I'm not sure what is.
BTW, it isn't about sheer number of military actions a President gets us involved in, its whether or not they are legitimate, dummy.

Care to dig yourself a deeper hole, short-bus?

 

[abasuto]

http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/...c_and_republican_presidents_too_us_to_war.htm

More Democratic Presidents have taken us to war than Republican presidents, don't forget that.

That was the past and the Parties today are much different than they were back then, so this statement is true, but doesn't mean anything.

What so and so did in the past is only good for nostalgic sports buffs.

 

[RAINBOW PONY]

I guess having John Kerry or a Al Gore being president would have been better, huh?

You have NO IDEA how much better it would have been.

But in a way I am thankful Gore didn't get to be President, he's doing much more important work than he ever would have as the US President. Which is also why I was happy he did not choose to run this time. He has more important things.

Also, the next 4 years are going to be a wasted presidency, as all the time will be spent just undoing all the shit Bush has done. Nothing will be GAINED, only the Negative will be pulled back into neutrality.

 

[jethrek]

Your not bound by one party you can be a flip flop like Kerry if you want.

The big difference with McCain is he works with both parties and doesn't stick with one side of the aisle. He knows to get things done you have to work with fellow Democrates.

So when Kerry switches sides it's flip-flopping yet when McCain does it it's "working with the Democrats". The entire idea is silly, and you're still in one big pickle when firing shots at me: you obviously have no idea what my political philosophy is. There's never been any flip-flopping about it. I've liked McCain for years, and I've liked Obama since he first hit the political scene, and I'm all for seeing them go toe-to-toe to prove who's the better candidate for President.

One of the things I like most about these two candidates is they don't jump to the kind of mindless drivel the Bush's, Clinton, and peons like you do.

 

[Segata_Sanshiro]

RINO. Republican in name only. It's an acronym. You thinking about it for like five seconds would spare me from having to spell it out for you

 

[aria]

So, yeah, people chomping at the bit for the General, but we're still stuck in the "sorting out candidate" phase.

The idea that we were weaker towards terrorism because of the Clinton years is as flawed as blaming Bush Sr. or Reagan for the things that happened in the first few years of Clinton's term (i.e. '93 WTC bombing).

The "problem", as such, is that in America we have this darned, annoying bond with personal liberty. It's something that various libertarians, democrats and republicans can agree on and its what keeps the government from always pushing the limits of freedom that people in various gov't departments and agencies would like to. 9/11 caused an embarrasing amount of hysteria in America, and we've been arguing over the laws passed at that time ever since --again, the lines aren't perfectally partisan on that issue, either.

I am happy to see that our government, the KSA and others are starting to team up to actually solve the problem: with reeducation programs (not nearly as nefarious as they normally would be) in the Middle East. Why are there changing views in the Middle East governments? Simple: The world is now significantly less safe, and that's not debateable.

 

[Loopz]

And now, a little bit of teh funnay.

 

[abasuto]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

 

[jethrek]

RINO. Republican in name only. It's an acronym. You thinking about it for like five seconds would spare me from having to spell it out for you

The problem with the sort of name calling Neo Geo MVS is resorting to is that it is far too broad-sweeping to catch the many people who put a little more thought into their decisions. I've been called a Republican tool, a "liberal", a turncoat, a commie, a libertarian, and a RINO alternately by diffrent people all with equally misguided agendas, all ignoring the issues and the integrity of candidates in favor of weak attacks. Most of them are actually smart enougfhg to know better, or would be if they bothered to think about their behavior.

Five years ago, I got to brave the Republican retard-storm by daring to suggest that the Iraq war was going to be the dumbest fiasco I could ever see. Prior to that, I had little to say against Bush (minus a number of long-winded anti-patriot act rants), but daring to suggest that clearly meant I was a commie-liberal who supported the Clintons (despite having been a Clinton-opponent since long before I could vote), so if you tihnk calling me a RINO is impressing me, when my five year old opposition to the Iraq war has been unwavering... think again.

Oh, and, the rest of the country might be a few years late, but it's nice to see them over here. The Iraq War is the dumbest fiasco imaginable. I doubt Obama or McCain can truely undo what we already screwed up years ago.

 

[norton9478]

Successful terrorist attacks on the US during the Clinton administration:
-1993 World Trade Center bombing (6 dead, 1000 injured)
-1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia (5 US soldiers dead)
-1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia (19 US soldiers dead, 200 injured)
-1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa (257 dead, 5000 injured)
-2000 bombing of the USS Cole (17 soldiers dead, 3 injured)

Shows how short sighted you are... You missed the second deadliest terror attack on a US institution ever.

Successful terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11:
-fucking none.

This is patently false. There have been several attacks on American Interests since then. A big one in Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Then you have hundreds of terror attacks on US personel EVERY FUCKING WEEK in Iraq.

 

[norton9478]

The idea that we were weaker towards terrorism because of the Clinton years is as flawed as blaming Bush Sr. or Reagan for the things that happened in the first few years of Clinton's term (i.e. '93 WTC bombing).

It is also flawed to suggest that the 90's was an abberation from the norm of the 70's and 80's.

 

[Hidden Character]

Successful terrorist attacks on the US during the Clinton administration:
-1993 World Trade Center bombing (6 dead, 1000 injured)
-1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia (5 US soldiers dead)
-1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia (19 US soldiers dead, 200 injured)
-1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa (257 dead, 5000 injured)
-2000 bombing of the USS Cole (17 soldiers dead, 3 injured)

Successful terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11:
-fucking none.

Would Klansmen fall under terrorist attacks to American citizens or does that not count?

 

[RAINBOW PONY]

Famicom's post is LMAO worthy.

If we're already putting in Terror attacks outside the USA, then you have dozens and dozens of cases around the world since Bush has been appointed.

 

[Loopz]

Shows how short sighted you are... You missed the second deadliest terror attack on a US institution ever.



This is patently false. There have been several attacks on American Interests since then. A big one in Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Then you have hundreds of terror attacks on US personel EVERY FUCKING WEEK in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that terrorism had existed in every corner of the world before that, and numerous attacks on US interests/citizens in the 1980s (El-Al counter massacre in Rome, the Achille Lauro, Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie, numerous other hijackings).

Do we pin those on the Reagan and Bush admins? Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon after the bombing at the barracks killed over 240 US Marines.
Was that "cut and run"?

The bottom line here is that as long as there are pissed off, angry people in any corner of the globe who see an outside power as the cause for their misery, the potential for terror exists. It is a cheap way to score political points against an awesome military power like the US. It's far more cost-effective (not to mention the moral advantages) to address the root causes of terrorism by trying to bring the Israeli/Palestinian question to the table and battling poverty everywhere else.

You simply cannot make it a policy to kill everyone who hates you. It isn't morally or fiscally responsible in the least. You respond to direct actionable threats, you install the best security you can, and then you tackle the rest via diplomatic means and trying to win hearts and minds. The whole neo-conservative experiment in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster and anyone who believes otherwise either isn't paying attention to reality or hates being wrong, or both.

Terror will always exist, especially in an age of such a lopsided military advantage.
We have become so powerful that we have basically made conventional military force obsolete. Think of it this way...if you were pissed off at Michael Jordan, and he insisted on kicking your ass playing one-on-one hoops...would you keep playing, or would you tell him to fuck off and try to get him to play air hockey?
Bush took the bait and put his quarter into a game he has no idea how to play.

 

[aria]

PSA:

Pennsylvanians

Voters must be registered in a party to vote in the state’s primary. So if you're planning to vote in the primary, and you haven't registered, do so. If you're an independent who wants to vote for any of the candidates, you need to register with the party who's primary you want to vote in.

 

[norton9478]

PSA:

Pennsylvanians

Voters must be registered in a party to vote in the state’s primary. So if you're planning to vote in the primary, and you haven't registered, do so. If you're an independent who wants to vote for any of the candidates, you need to register with the party who's primary you want to vote in.

People think that (open primaries) is a dumb idea...

Until they see scores of voters crossing lines just to mess up the primary of the other party.

 

[El_Duque]

I haven't been on this thread for awhile but that stupid Reverend is fucking up Obama.

 

[Segata_Sanshiro]

I haven't been on this thread for awhile but that stupid Reverend is fucking up Obama.

Things I'd like to see the Obama campaign do:

1. Explain that almost anyone will make two or three stupid statements in a career spanning several decades

2. Have Obama say something to the effect of 'it's sad that these few extreme statements are all that most people will hear from my pastor. Here's why I like him' and post really inspiring Jeremiah Whatshisfuckinglastname sermons on youtube. Obviously this guy is good at making people shit money or he wouldn't be a pastor at a church for VIP's - Obama can turn him into good P.R. and a fundraising tool.

When life gives you lemons...

 

[norton9478]

I don't know why everybody is freaking out about what the pastor said...

What he was saying was mostly true anyways.

Most people have never and will never go to a church like that..... If they did, they would probably understand the whole shit.

I've been to a church like that...
2 1/2 hour service felt like it took half a fucking hour. Contrast that to my home church where service never lasts longer than 50 minutes... and motherfuckers start looking at their watches at the half hour mark.

 

[Nesagwa]

Things I'd like to see the Obama campaign do:

1. Explain that almost anyone will make two or three stupid statements in a career spanning several decades

2. Have Obama say something to the effect of 'it's sad that these few extreme statements are all that most people will hear from my pastor. Here's why I like him' and post really inspiring Jeremiah Whatshisfuckinglastname sermons on youtube. Obviously this guy is good at making people shit money or he wouldn't be a pastor at a church for VIP's - Obama can turn him into good P.R. and a fundraising tool.

When life gives you lemons...

You did watch that half hour speech that he wrote himself that addressed this issue and has won a lot of praise didnt you? I posted it a few days ago in this thread. Go have a look.

Or youre being sarcastic (which doesnt seem likely.)

 

[Kazuki Dash]

Has anybody heard news about the apparent lie/misleading account Clinton gave about her 1996 visit to Tuzla, Bosnia? I saw a quick mention about it this morning on TV but didn't get a full impression on what it was about. So I found something with more info:

link with embedded video

Personally, this raises serious doubts about the "experience" she keeps saying she has but I'm wondering if this will even get any kind of attention since the networks seem more concerned with maintaining the drama around Richardson's endorsement by constantly going back to that idiot James Carville's "Judas" reference. Way to disregard Richardson's message about discussing the actual issues that matter to Americans instead of feeding this friggin soap opera.

P.S. Remember Hillary's "3AM" ad? Casey Knowles does, and has her own response.

 

[Nesagwa]

She was also playing up her role in the Ireland talks as being very important and key to them.

She was in fact nothing but a cheer leader and wasnt at the table for any discussions according to everyone actually involved.

So what experience again?

 

[Neo Geo MVS]

Originally Posted by Loopz
The bottom line here is that as long as there are pissed off, angry people in any corner of the globe who see an outside power as the cause for their misery, the potential for terror exists. It is a cheap way to score political points against an awesome military power like the US. It's far more cost-effective (not to mention the moral advantages) to address the root causes of terrorism by trying to bring the Israeli/Palestinian question to the table and battling poverty everywhere else.

Right when I think your going to say something intelligent you go and fuk it up.

Only stupid people blame others for their misery because they live in a place with no opportunities.

Loopz your a dummy why dont you go troll around posting in every thread you can find in the forum to boost up your post count.